#genAI discourse

[faeryton]

[ID: An edited post from tonysopranobignaturals (deactivated):

me normally: i'm not personally a huge fan of ai art

me around tumblr users: I love ai art sooooo much and I think there should be copyright abolishment also

End ID]

[ribstongrowback]

i think the palworld thing is really interesting- because so far, there's no proof that the company used AI to make their mons

the real reason everyone is up in arms is because of the plagiarism thing, and like, idk, genuinely, do we care?

like does it matter?

it's game freak, they'll walk it off. people who like pokemons like them mostly out of brand loyalty. they like pokemons because they're pokemons, they don't just like cute monsters.

i'm sorry but i think it's fine if you want to make a game where legally distinct pikachu kills people with a 1911. i don't actually give a shit. like litterally why are we defending Pokemons, they're fine, they can shoot lasers and whatnot.

plagiarism matters when people are harmed. game freak is not people, and frankly, I don't think any of this will harm them.

one thing you can and should call palworld, however, is derivative. it lacks any sort of imagination. wether AI or not was used matters little: it's definitely just trying to make Content with a snappy concept and that's it. it's not worth your time not because of the tools that MIGHT have been used to make it, but because even if each of these mons had been painstakingly designed by hand with a graphite pencil, they'd still just be trying to ape pokemons. the intent would be the same regardless.

Pocketpair isn't the next Sommerton.

[narse-tantalus]

You're wrong when you say GenAI is incapable of reproducing specific works.

Specifically: exactly reproducing training data is what the models are trained to do, and then many techniques are used to attempt to get the overall product to not reproduce exact copies of the training data in their output.

Here's a source that talks about different techniques to use to prevent verbatim copying in LLMs:

It specifically says this is undesirable because:

LLMs can regenerate copyrighted content verbatim, creating risks for both LLM providers and users.

For Users: Outputs containing copyrighted content could result in unintended legal issues, especially if such material is used commercially or distributed without proper authorization.

For providers: Hosting and distributing models capable of regenerating protected content poses unresolved legal challenges. This issue is particularly concerning for code models. Verbatim code reuse can impact licensing agreements, even for open-source code with restrictions on commercial use.

So your argument that genAI shouldn't be copyright infringement isn't accepted by people who develop genAI models and put lots of effort into making them infringe less often in their final outputs.

Your argument is obviously stronger when applied to novel output of genAIs (which may be all you intended to argue about). But the fact that they often and undesirably create exact copies of their training data does raise questions about the extent to which what they do is simply copying other works badly or is the creation of something original. Does it change your perception of a GenAI work to know that its first several attempts were deleted and not displayed to a user because they were judged by the service's algorithms to be too copyright infringing?

Do you care if LLMs reproduce Open Source code with a closed source license erroneously attached? Or are you contemptuous of the Open source and copyleft movements because they rely on copyright to enforce their licensing terms?

I feel like the people attacking the idea of copyright in the notes - especially those saying it's a tool that only benefits corporations - should be reminded that open sourcing and Creative Commons licencing rely on copyright to have legal force.

the framing of generative ai as "theft" in popular discourse has really set us back so far like not only should we not consider copyright infringement theft we shouldn't even consider generative ai copyright infringement

[blightbright]

Solas fandom and "genAI"

I recently came back to Tumblr 99.9% because life is stressful and I'm autistic and special interesting about Solas, but I never could keep my mouth shut so... re: so-called "genAI" in fandom spaces:

I say so-called because it is neither truly generative nor intelligent, and it is not really artificial: it is created with the real stolen efforts of living people and real environmental exploitation

I have little interest in blaming everyday individuals (except CEOs, political leaders, billionaires, etc) for the harms of the most popular "genAI" tech, because it's a systemic problem

"genAI" is intentionally confusing and it's ok if people are genuinely ignorant, at first, of how it works or the harm

I also have loved ones who disagree with me

THAT SAID, I urge people to learn more about and consider the harms to society, other people, and one's own process of self-expression, learning, and creativity from the use of "genAI"

I can't control your behavior but I can tell you that your messiest, most "OOC," error-ridden rough draft, or your most wonky-proportioned stick figure fan art is infinitely more precious, valuable, and emotionally, culturally, and spiritually significant than an unintelligent plagiarism algorithm doing it for you, even if it gets less hits/kudos at first. don't give up hope: your own art means something. I encourage you to make fandom a heartfelt space of resistance!

it is important for communities to define boundaries of unacceptable behavior (i.e. use of non-gen AI spellcheck, Google Translate, "genAI" rewrite functions, character "chats," plot/outline "generation," full-blown "generated" pieces... IMO, I'm fine with the first, uneasy but ok with the second, and the rest I actively oppose)

in the absence of clear boundaries, transparency is key! please publicly and clearly disclose ANY use of "genAI" at ANY stage of the process for fan works, because concealment of this is disrespectful and hurtful. if you didn't know before, such is life. now you know.

avoid all bad faith arguments about shipping wars and witch hunts. you have nothing to fear from posts uncovering AI if you do not use undisclosed "genAI": the two works in question did. you have many things to fear from unchecked "genAI" use if you are a writer, artist, or someone who needs our planet to stay alive

the work @durgeapologist, @fangbanger3000, and others have done to raise awareness about "genAI" use in popular fan works is extremely valuable, difficult work, and does not need to be perfectly worded to be earnest, meaningful, and ultimately beneficial for fan communities

bonus point, sponsored by autism: Solas as a character draws on figures from Norse lore including Loki, god of many things including callouts and criticism of powerful systems; Odin, god of words, wisdom, poets, and uncontrollable creative inspiration; and Fenrir, wolfpup god of surviving trauma, seeking praise and social approval from the powerful only for it to result in pain, raging against the system, and freedom. IMO, if I want any character to rally people together for the sake of resisting billionaire tech companies when possible and celebrating old-fashioned creativity, it's Solas. it's in his story's DNA. whoever we want him to smooch.

[kimyoonmiauthor]

AI Bros, yo...

So someone tried to say because I was against Gen AI, that I was being "Elitist" lol, "Ableist" lol and "anti-poor people."

Dudes, are you even disabled, poor, or have grand privileges like being a white male (they had a picture of a white male on their profile)

You're against Poor people

Me, who was given up for adoption and still has trauma responses from knocking on doors because I was so dirt poor, they had to give me up for adoption. And me, who used to walk to the library because I didn't have internet on my free days to get air conditioning, to submit stories, is being effing prejudiced against poor people. Oh, how rich it is to say shit like that. And you know what? I still drew and wrote and submitted stories.

But, but you know that I am being really prejudiced against poor people. Do you want to talk about that?

I used computer paper and a pencil. And have you seen the artwork of Slay the Princess which is pretty much almost all mechanical pencil?

You're being insulting to poor people. You're saying poor people can't do art or be creative. When backed into a corner, 100% I was great at art. I made art with brie, I made art with a rock I found on the sidewalk.

Lascaux's caves is basically chewed and spat out dirt, dudes. And you're saying you need AI if you're poor. WHA~~ Some great artists were poor their entire lives.

Rembrandt???

I've made art out of an orange peel. Art is a result of resourcefulness and creativity.

You hate NDs

C-PTSD, dyscalculia, SPD. Yep, I hate myself. And damn it, I hate NDs, and fuck, I can't draw anything. OMG, I need AI /s

This is the only AI I used. This is called Adobe Illustrator. [A]dobe [I]llustrator, though I used Affinity as well.

I did test AI mostly to mock it, but I clearly marked it.

I created 100% of the brushes and all of the vectors. "OMG, I can't do art. I have a disability that makes me can't do art." /s

I heard the Autistic excuse crap too (that person wasn't autistic, BTW, I checked). I've done art exchanges with people in that ND camp as well, in fact, sometimes I feel like they are better than me.

You hate Disabled people (some of the bros called everyone else The disableds... ?.? And then I know you're not disabled)

I have CPTSD, which is more like a cocktail. I also get chronic pain from issues you don't need to know.

And I still was able to draw this. OMG, you're terrible and hate disabled people when you insist on not using AI.

BTW, There is no disability around creativity.

Disabled people don't have a disability around creativity. I saw someone sew clothes with their mouth. Are you going to tell me that sewing isn't creative? Someone was paralized from the neck down, on vents and was typing a novel from a computer tracking their eye movements. And this isn't the inspiration porn moment, but just saying. If they want to, they can.

You're being Elitist

Huh? lol rotfl

I have a degree in Anthropology concentrated in systems, I'm likely more of a red shirt. You adopted? You queer? You have disabilities? You're ND? You're female? You got called not real because you're all of these things and called a catfish?

You, gen AI bro, are more likely to be more elitist than I am.

And then he slinked off...

Because he had no defenses, and couldn't figure out how to think independently without AI. Whereas, I swear, the majority of my knowledge was gained by going to libraries (Some of that work is on this blog, BTW with clear pictures of the books I collected. Look for Robert Goheen. I took that picture in the university. I had to go to a university library for that. And no, I did not attend said university, but it is allowable by university rules as long as I don't try to check the book out.), which, BTW, he also called elitist. HAHAHA. I pay no money for books and actually put in the effort and that's elitist?

The majority of learning how to draw was done on my own by leveling up. Yes, I did take Graphic design classes. Yes, but most of that knowledge is now on the internet. The advantage of classes is being around other like-minded people and having that collective energy push you to be better and find out what you can and can't do, to push your limits. And I'm sorry, no AI can do that.

The best AI can do is fuck up hanbok and not understand what time period the hanbok came from. And I'm not going to teach it that.

And if it's elitist to say I clawed tooth and nail to be able to draw and spent time and effort, then fuck it, anyone that wakes up in the morning and puts in daily effort to get better at anything is elitist for not being lazy and learning how to think for themselves.

[ultimate-marysue]

I just saw a post saying "I know AI shouldn't be in creative spaces but I was just messing around with it for funsies and look at this cute excerpt" and it's like...do you really know why AI shouldn't be in creative spaces or do you just say that because the collective of Tumblr has decided it's bad?

This is not a rhetorical question to sound smart, I think the most important thing we can do to combat Gen AI is information. So here I go, GenAI it's bad in creative spaces for 3 main reasons (with sources):

It detracts value from the actual creatives (loss of jobs, opportunities, money, or just the inherent value of the process of creation).

It steals the work of countless creatives without their knowledge/consent, by using it you're training it further.

It sucks ass ecologically and wastes a bunch of energy/water to create something of no value besides entertainment.

I'm explaining this not to trash op (who shall remain anonymous and is far from the only person to miss the point), but so more people understand why using it "for funsies" it's also bad.

My theory is that people focus too much on the first point and not enough on the other two. Yes, asking Chatgpt "what's Ligma?" Or "write me a ficlet of Gollum destroying the Death Star" won't steal anyone's job. It won't make you value fanfic writers any less (hell, it might make you value them more) but that doesn't mean it's a victimless crime just cause it's for personal use and no one else can see it (and judge you for it).

Using GenAI is inherently amoral because you're being complicit in the use of artists' works without their permission. You're giving your tacit approval and telling the people in charge "I don't care that you stole material from struggling artists". Yes, you're not using it for commercial purposes, but they don't care about that. They just want you to use it and, congrats, you did! And by using it not only are you approving of it, but training it for free. You're helping them.

Not only that, but every single prompt requires energy. Nothing comes for free, just because it's not on your water bill doesn't make it any less wasteful. Yes, of course billioners are contributing way more to climate change! And hell, if it was something necessary I would defend your right to do it even if it was a bit wasteful. But that's the point: it's completely unnecessary. It's a banality that you use for entertainment when there's already a near infinite amount of free content of the same kind for you to consume in social media. You're wasting energy for something that's not even particularly good and that has an easy substitute that's even better. I'm not asking people to buy solar-powered Christmas lights, I'm asking you to go read headcanons and incorrect quotes on Tumblr instead of asking Chatgpt to vomit you some bullshit.

I'm not against all AI, just gen AI, and it's clear that these guys are too! They said it themselves. So, TLDR: don't use GenAI even as a silly joke. This is not about external judgement of your actions, it's about understanding their impact and choosing based on that. It's unnecessary, polluting and it gives your tacit approval for the violation of artists' consent on their work. If you've done this because you didn't know about the other negative effects of GenAI, it's fine, you're not a bad person for not understanding how it works (that's by design). Now you know, and know you can make informed decisions about it.

[moran-with-a-g]

Stop giving ChatGPT so much credit.

It's not amazing, it's not horrible, it's literally just a tool.

It has some uses where it's good, it has some uses where it's bad.

The whole thing about it hurting your ability to think depends on how you use it. Does TikTok not shorten your attention spam? Do computers not make you go out to the sun less? Did they not claim TV ruins your eyesight? Did they not claim using a calculator will make you dumb?

I had to write a ton of regex this week for a monitoring dashboard I was building and you can be sure as fuck I used ChatGPT for that, and I actually started understanding how regex works and started needing it less (even though regex is still evil). Because I also took the time to understand why it worked, and didn't just blindly copy-pasted. I did not use ChatGPT to write any other part of the project, because I didn't need a tool to generate the descriptions for the graphs, or the layout, or the metrics. But if I didn't use it for the regex I would have done maybe a third of the work I managed to do this week, and for what?

Should you use it to write whole stories, essays, etc? No, I don't think you should. That's not what the tool is for.

But if you're writing a fanfic and you want some cool CSS to make the text shake for some part of it? Yeah you could generate it using chatGPT.

And even if someone uses it to generate a story or an essay, they can do it in a way that still challenges their thinking. They can use it to generate points to work from as a base. They can use it for a first draft and then rewrite it. They can ask for a metaphor and work from there.

And if they don't? That's on them. A nurse is not going to pass medical school only using chatGPT, there are practical exams they'll need to pass. And how is that different from normal cheating? You think people didn't cheat before ChatGPT? You think there aren't tools that help you find WHO is cheating with ChatGPT? It's actually easier to spot than normal cheating.

Y'all are making such a fuss about it. Don't like? Don't use it. But don't shame people who do. If you don't want to see AI generated stories on AO3, stop shaming people who post them so they start tagging them properly so you could filter them out, or know not to click. Have an issue with people who cheat using chatGPT, because it doesn't engage the brain? Show them the correct ways to use the tool to actually engage their brain. Encourage them to try and understand the logic behind the results they get.

And maybe focus about targeting the companies behind the GenAI instead of the users, to make the tool less harmful for the environment and to stop using stolen data to train it? Or, you know, develop an alternative that only uses data that was given with informed consent and that the creators were compensated for?

[valtharr]

Okay, so... you know those people who voted for Trump because of his immigration policy and were then surprised when said immigration policy resulted in not only the "bad" illegal immigrants being locked away and deported, but also, like, the nice family next door, or the kind old man down the street who used to watch the dog when they're at work?

That's how people who create, or even just appreciate, fan work sound like when they argue for harsher legislation to prevent "theft" by AI.

[ginnyw-potter]

ai isn’t that bad. it’s the people who are abusing it.

ai helped my brother who had a learning disability (he’s also physically disabled too) learn math because his teachers were too impatient with him, and now he’s a genius at math. ai had helped him express his feelings so it’s easier for us to comprehend. ai has helped him understand things better around him. he’s told ai about his dark thoughts when he feels like giving up and ai has helped him and talks him through it. i overheard that conversation one day and my heart broke. i didn’t know how to help him so i took a page out of his book and asked ai how i could help him and guess what? it gave me step by step instructions. my family can’t afford to send him to a psychiatrist because our bills are through the roof (god bless merica and our health care system). its not ai as a tool that’s evil or bad, it’s the people using it. I saw a documentary of when computers were first coming out and the huge outcry from the public. there will be idiots abusing every type of technology and ruining it for others. we just can’t allow that to cloud our judgement and create a biased opinion while not taking into account the benefits and how many people it is helping. for my family ai has saved my brother’s life and I’ll be eternally grateful for that.

Hi anon,

You're accusing me of being biased when you have given me this biased example about your personal experience. I'm not anti-technology, in fact I'm usually the first person to try out things. I find it exciting. But I have read up on AI and have had classes on machine learning (in that case in relation to machine translation). I do think I have an objective grasp of how it works that's not influenced by personal negative experience with it.

I did not say the output of AI is inherently bad. I'm sure a lot of it is useful to people, but it's flawed. There have been cases of AI telling people to harm themselves and please die. As much as it has done good for your brother, it has done harm to others. Why? Not because it was trained to be bad, it's just taking what it has read from the internet, without bias or logic. Meaning it could easily find misinformation. There is such a vast amount of information that is being processed that it's going largely unchecked by human eyes.

You can use AI as a tool, but just as you can use that there are other tools for people with learning disabilities and other disabilities to help them, that are designed to help people with those specific needs. Some of those tools are flawed too and not always accessible to those who need it, but that's not something AI is going to fix.

I'm sorry the system has failed your brother and he didn't get the resources he needed. I am glad he is doing well, but that doesn't erase all the issues that exists with AI.

[notaplaceofhonour]

A machine could never replicate the pure unbridled creativity & originality of human art. thus, to even the playing field, human artists are mandated to cease making original art, and draw the same red circle with a line through it over the word “A.I.”

[faeryton]

sorry i'm still on about this. but i feel like there's two issues here, the issue of genai and the issue of IP. and y'all are conflating them like ur life depends on it

[aihoshiino]

[karl-von-moor-official]

Ok but like... who is actually on the side of AI art? Is there literally anyone who's like, fuck yes, I'm an AI artist (whatever that is) and so forth? Perhaps it's because I live in this tumblr bubble but I legitimately have not seen a lot of people who are actually pro-AI. In fact, I think that AI has way less power than many people (esp artists) fear it has, because most people don't actually WANT AI art. Sure, it might fill a niche, but I don't actually think it will be all that successful. Users don't want to get AI bullshit when they google stuff (if I'm not misinterpreting the consensus), so users will begin to switch it off, and a feature that's not used is usually also one the company doesn't invest in.

I think there are ways in which AI could be helpful, for example in science, I want an AI that helps me with my taxes, helps me find the papers I'm trying to cite, helps me do stupid calculations, one that gives me MORE time to create art, rather than making art FOR me while I continue to struggle with google scholar's awful interface. And I actually believe most people would agree with me! I actually believe most people dont see genAI as an art form. I would be interested in hearing a programmer's or a software engineer's opinion on this. Do they think it's art? Are they happy to have created a code that writes its own code? Do they consider it an art form?

All I'm saying is, I think we needn't be afraid. There have been many revolutions in art, whether it be the switch from classical oil paintings to abstract art forms, or the introduction of digital art. Just think of the music industry! Everything's on Spotify nowadays, but that doesn't mean there aren't still people listening to the radio, or buying vinyls. Art is timeless. AI won't take that away from us. And of course a case can be made for AI taking jobs away from artists and it's a tragedy, but making money with art has always been a struggle and the people who were willing to pay you what your work is worth before AI got big will still be willing to pay you now, because those are the people who care for art, for expression, for authenticity. People/companies who are using AI instead of hiring an artist never appreciated art in the first place.

I'm not saying that we should stop worrying about genAI. Protect your data and your art! Tell Meta AI to fuck off! (Look it up, you can and should reject Mata's attempt to train their AI with your data, on places like Instagram, but you have to do it manually.) Keep speaking up about the fact that it doesn't make sense that this is what AI is being used for when we have so many things in our lives we would actually NOT want to do ourselves and art clearly is a thing that we WANT to do ourselves! Don't stop being aware of this topic. But don't fear. AI can't take something away from you that thousands of years of human history haven't been able to take away from you.

[berix2010]

"Noooo AI art can't be real art!! "Yes it is actually anything can be art!!!" People in the real world are losing their jobs thanks to corporations trying to cut costs no matter how many lives they ruin, but yeah please go off on debates that were already tired half a century ago.

[spoookiepie]

The problem is you haven’t been 100% transparent with this tho.

I’ve followed you for a long time here on tumblr where you’ve never posted about your experiments using GenAI. I don’t follow you on twitter and I’m not a part of your discord - as I’m sure is the case for many people. I and many others are only finding out now because other people are being more vocal about it, so much so that you’ve come here to tumblr to get ahead of it.

And ok, if you had just experimented with AI a couple years ago and then decided to drop it once you learned more about its negative impact, that’d be one thing. I’ve seen plenty of artists do that, make their new stance very clear, and move on.

But you’ve been talking positively about GenAI and downplaying its environmental effects as recently as this year. As recently as TODAY.

That’s really disappointing to see from an artist who’s done so many works specifically about the environment.

And even your entire post above, you downplay your use of the tech, but never actually denounce it.

I’m not accusing you of using GenAI in your most recent painting. But by your own admission, you’ve played with the tech in the past, used it in your comic, and actively like it and plan to use it moving forward. It’s not wholly unfounded for people to be questioning you, and asking for firm clarification on your stance regarding GenAI.

I've been told that there are rumors about me using AI for my paintings. Please use some common sense, I've been posting on DeviantART since 2003 and sharing full video recordings on Patreon since 2018. If I'm a fake, wouldn't my Patrons have noticed by now? Since AI has been turning artists against each other, accusing each other of using AI, I have no choice but to share of some the Patreon rewards as proof. Here is the 10 full video recordings of me painting A Thousand Skies from scratch

I built the 3D model base for this painting in Sketchup, which you can see here

When AI was at it's infancy, I was very excited to have a new tool to help me make comics. Long time followers will know I struggled with repetitive strain injury that forced my comic making to a crawl. A decade before AI, I was experimenting with 3D backgrounds for comics.

I still remember the hate I got for using 3D models in my comic backgrounds, even though today nobody blinks at other artists doing the same. 3D is now accepted as a tool to help artists create. I even remember hate for being digital instead of traditional.

I tested out painting over AI generated backgrounds a few times in the very early stages of AI. There are a lot of screenshots taken out of context from my Discord where I share how I paint everything with complete transparency.

The only other time I've used AI in my art is for a gag scene in my comic, the full context is my character, Vance, who is a weeb and tech nerd, was objectifying women by seeing them as anime cat girls pasted over AI flower backgrounds.

If I had downloaded a flower stamp brush from ClipStudio and made a similar flower background, nobody would care. But somehow this is not okay even though it fits the theme and joke of the comic?

It's 2AM where I am now so I won't say much else other than I wish people would stop taking my posts out of context. With everything going on in the world, artists should support each other, not make up reasons to hurt each other.

[insertagolfpun]

My favourite animal is people forgetting that coding exists—

People address NPCs as AI, Artificial Intelligence, a lot. I do not wish to hold your hand and say that fact when you can pull up gaming commentaries from way back when and watch it yourself.

I do not support genai for art. Gaming & coding is a form of art but since the "OH GOD!? IS THAT AI!? GRAB THE PITCHFORKS AND BURN THE CREATERS!?" Boom like it's the fucking middle ages. Take a step back and breathe. Ai has been around longer than us (wiki link if you wish to read about it)— people who were born after the 1940s or 1950s—

I'm tired of people screaming genA-i at every little thing they see. At this point, someone is going to see a real person with a missing toe or a few more fingers and talk about how they are genA-i... (that was COMPLETELY sarcastic). But seriously what the fuck?